where I found the following:
"how can you say that the original expression of the local population is irrelevant today? if it is true that the kashmiri people wish to be rid of indian oppression, and we are afraid that the result will be a US protectorate, then our duty is not to deny the former, but to fight the latter, isn't it?"
WS: By your own logic, how do you determine what the "original expression of the local population?" You start the thread on pen-l by questioning Ulhas's contentionthat 70 % of terrorists are outsiders, correctly pointing out that the figure depends who is counting.
By the same logic, "the original expression of the population" also depends on who's counting, no? You have various groups claiming to represent "the people" and you may even have the majority of the people flip-flopping on what their stance is, depending who is asking, how the question is framed, and what else is going on in the world.
Saying that the people want this or that is even more absurd that saying that x% of terrorists come from abroad. The latter may be true or false, but at least it is testable. The former means anything any speaker wants it to mean - which is tantamount to having no particular meaning at all.
Do not get me wrong, I do not have any bias regarding the Kashmir situation, mainly because I do not know much about the background of this conflict. However, I have very little sympathy toward separatist claims and movements in general - mainly because I prefer universalism to nationalism and jingoism. In the same vein, I have little sympathy toward claims to a separate Palestinian state, a separate Basque state or the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Invariably, all these separatist movements claimed to represent the "will of the people" - which was nothing but a crass cover up for totalitarian ambitions of lesser elites.
Wojtek